IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:13-CR-0004

Judge Graham

RYAN D. KASLER

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and defendant Ryan D. Kasler 

entered into a plea agreement whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea 

of guilty to Count One of the Indictment charging him with knowing 

receipt of visual depictions of child pornography in interstate 

commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).1

 On March 14, 2013, 

defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a change of plea 

proceeding. Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to 

enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. See United States v. 

Cukaj, 2001 WL 1587410 at *1 (6th Cir. 2001) [Magistrate Judge may 

accept a guilty plea with the express consent of the defendant and 

where no objection to the report and recommendation is filed]; United 

States v. Torres, 258 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. 

Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 263-69 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Ciapponi, 

77 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 1996). 

During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the 

appearance and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions. 

Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the 

time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of 

his faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental 

illness, and was not under the influence of narcotics or alcohol. 

 1 Defendant also agrees not to contest the forfeiture count.

Case: 2:13-cr-00004-JLG Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned 

addressed defendant personally and in open court and determined his 

competence to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned, 

defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charges returned 

in the Indictment and the consequences of his plea of guilty to Count 

One of the Indictment. Defendant was also addressed personally and in 

open court and advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Having engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the 

Court concludes that defendant’s plea is voluntary. Defendant 

acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and 

the attorney for the United States and filed on March 6, 2013,

represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in 

the Indictment. Defendant was advised that the District Judge may 

accept or reject the plea agreement and that, even if the Court 

refuses to accept any provision of the plea agreement not binding on 

the Court,2 defendant may nevertheless not withdraw his guilty plea. 

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of 

the statement of facts supporting the charge. He confirmed that he is 

pleading guilty to Count One of the Indictment because he is in fact 

guilty of the offense charged in that count. The Court concludes that 

there is a factual basis for the plea. 

The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to 

Count One of the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with 

understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge and of the 

consequences of the plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Ryan D. Kasler’s

guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment be accepted. Decision on 

 2 The plea agreement contains a binding sentencing stipulation of 180 

months pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).

Case: 2:13-cr-00004-JLG Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement was deferred for 

consideration by the District Judge after the preparation of a 

presentence investigation report. 

In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as 

expressly agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written 

presentence investigation report will be prepared by the United States 

Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide information;

defendant’s attorney may be present if defendant so wishes. 

Objections to the presentence report must be made in accordance with 

the rules of this Court. 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this 

Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, 

file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and 

Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis 

for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object 

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right 

to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the 

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

March 14, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:13-cr-00004-JLG Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>